| Science/Technology
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
3974 |
|
|
Date: April 25, 2013 at 19:32:57
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: On the crank phenomenon |
|
|
Ran across a quotation by physicist Sean Carroll made while being interviewed for a podcast that I think helps sum up the problem with 'cranks'.
Brian
The crank phenomenon is sociologically incredibly interesting. I think that there's essentially nothing that it adds to the progress of science, because science is hard.... I don't think that the problem is people who just make stuff up. It's people who think they can get the right answer just by thinking about it without asking what anyone else has ever thought about it.
One of the ways I put it to them face to face is, "You're asking me to spend time reading and understanding your theory. So before I do that, I would like you to take the time to read and understand my theory, which is every working scientist's theory, namely the Standard Model of Particle Physics, based on Quantum Field Theory, plus general relativity." Very, very few of these people have really mastered the basics that any graduate student who gets a Ph.D. in this field has mastered a long time ago.
There are some fields that attract people like this, the ones where the questions are easy enough to phrase that people can take a stab at answering them. What is gravity? What's healthy for you? How did evolution work? You know, if you have a questions about "What is the cross-section of a pi-meson that interacts with a k-meson?" ... No cranks are really working that out, because they don't know what it means and they don't care about it....
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3975] [3977] |
|
3975 |
|
|
Date: April 26, 2013 at 04:58:00
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: hubris of "mastery" |
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model |
|
"... which is every working scientist's theory, namely the Standard Model of Particle Physics, based on Quantum Field Theory, plus general relativity." Very, very few of these people have really mastered the basics that any graduate student who gets a Ph.D. in this field has mastered a long time ago."
How can a theory that's incomplete be mastered by anyone?
"The Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it makes certain simplifying assumptions. It does not incorporate the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity, or predict the accelerating expansion of the universe (as possibly described by dark energy). The theory does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not correctly account for neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses). Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent,[clarification needed] it has several apparently unnatural properties giving rise to puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem. Also, the treatment of larger numbers of particles is the realm of statistical physics.[2] Moreover, when studied in the context of an extremely small scale, quantum mechanics starts to kick in, and give rise to several phenomena such as the particle in a box problem[3][4] and wave–particle duality,[5][6] or theoretical considerations, such as whether particles can be considered distinct or identical.[7][8]
Nevertheless, the Standard Model is important to theoretical and experimental particle physicists alike. For theorists, the Standard Model is a paradigm of a quantum field theory, which exhibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative behavior, etc. It is used as a basis for building more exotic models that incorporate hypothetical particles, extra dimensions, and elaborate symmetries (such as supersymmetry) in an attempt to explain experimental results at variance with the Standard Model, such as the existence of dark matter and neutrino oscillations. In turn, experimenters have incorporated the Standard Model into simulators to help search for new physics beyond the Standard Model."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3977] |
|
3977 |
|
|
Date: April 26, 2013 at 13:50:30
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: hubris of "mastery" |
|
|
"How can a theory that's incomplete be mastered by anyone?"
Perhaps I should ask you, why can't an incomplete theory be mastered? I pondered your question and I honestly think you're asking out of ignorance (meaning simple lack of knowledge, not intended as an insult).
Just because the theory is incomplete that is no reason that one cannot master what IS known about the theory.
What Sean Carroll is talking about when he says 'cranks' haven't even "mastered the basics", he's talking about the simple little stuff that you learn in first year physics courses. These people don't even understand the stuff you'd learn in the first year of a graduate course, which could take 8-10 years of study, yet they are saying that those who HAVE those 8-10 years of study are wrong. Heck, I have seen people say things around here and in you tube videos that I know to be wrong based on high school physics alone!! Basic simple stuff.
A 16 year old kid who just got his driver's permit can't go to Indianapolis Speedway and expect to be believed when he says that Michael Schumacher doesn't know how to drive is race car, and that he (the 16 yo) has a better way. THAT is hubris.
Quite simply, it is an insult to the intelligence of those of us who ARE knowledgeable in a subject to be expected to listen to and accept the (sometimes vehement vitriolic) ramblings of those who haven't even bothered to learn the most basic fundamentals of the very subject we may have spent decades studying.
Now, I am human, and I am not perfect, but I do strive to be understanding that not everyone knows every subject, and therefore may make comments or judgments based on that lack of knowledge (ignorance in the NON insulting meaning), and I attempt to share the knowledge I do have so that others may learn and become less ignorant. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that it is human nature to shun, reject, and even denigrate (out of ignorance) those who are more knowledgeable and may know something more. So then, why should I bother attempting to share my knowledge so that others may learn when I and others are insulted for the effort?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Science/Technology ] [ Main Menu ] |